Scientific American has an interview in “Science Talk” with Dr. Richard Muller, who is spokesman for the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project.
I enjoyed the photograph, particularly for the poster over his left shoulder in the background.
Both Steve McIntyre and I are mentioned prominently in the article, and once again Dr. Muller thanks us for our contributions to the debate.
One quote about Mann’s hockey-stick from Dr. Muller made it past SciAm’s usual boilerplate position on the issue, and I was quite surprised to see it in print.
Muller: A few years later, McIntyre came out and, indeed, showed that the hockey-stick chart was in fact incorrect. It had been affected by a very serious bug in the way scientists calculated their principal components.
I applaud SciAm for not censoring what many consider to be an inconvenient truth about the bad science of that iconic graph.
This is also surprising to see in print in SciAm.
Q: You’ve also said more than once that nothing we do in the U.S. to reduce emissions will make any difference because emissions from coal burned by India and China
are growing so rapidly.
Muller: In fact, if we cut back and China continues to grow and India continues to grow, our cutting back will not achieve any real good. The hope is that we’ll set an example that China and India will follow. But the way it’s presented by many people, for political purposes because it sounds more compelling, is that we are responsible for terrible global warming, and we have to cut back regardless of what other people do. And that is not looking at the numbers.
Regarding Dr. Muller, whether you love him or hate him, the article is well worth reading, and has been helpfully provided by Joe Romm of Climate Progress (who is predictably upset by all this, but then again a light breeze upsets him) on his website where you can view it here (PDF).
The Muller article is fairly short (but in the “new” Scientific American of the past year they’re all fairly short) and begins on page 84 just short of the last page (92) before the back cover where it’s least likely to be read compared to everything else.
Muller isn’t half as damning as Joe Romm would have you believe. The only real negative I saw was Muller saying the Hockey Stick was bogus. I guess if the Hockey Team is still using the Hockey Stick that’s bad but I was under the impression everyone already knew it was bullshit.
Please note I predicted before Muller even got started with BEST that they would find no fundamental difference between their analysis of the instrumental record and the extant analysis. I made that prediction primarily because I don’t think the instrumental record is significantly flawed by UHI. It’s flawed by imprecision and lack of global coverage. The only point at which the instrumental record becomes sufficient in precision and coverage for the task is in the satellite era beginning in 1979 and that happens to align with oceanic oscillations which predict a temperature rise from natural causes. Even in this case it’s questionable whether the satellite record has the required precision given how many times it’s been “corrected” over the past 31 years.
To rely on an instrumental record which just about completely misses ocean surface temperature and huge swaths of the continents it has very little credibility in establishing any reliable global average temperature. What we need is a damned accurate measure of global average ocean temperature. Good luck with that. We only have a few years of data with adequate surface coverage and they still don’t dive deeper than 2000 meters which misses a full half of the ocean’s volume which lies below 2000 meters.
I find it hard to believe that any hard core scientist would be using a MacBook.
Dave Springer, if more scientists accept the idea that the Hockey Stick is bogus, what would that do to all the other papers that were written that assumed the data contained therein were accurate? Just think of the dove cotes that are shaken by THAT idea!
Muller is mendaciously mealy-mouthed. Calling Friedman and Gore “exaggerators” is pathetic. They are egregious dissembling hypesters.
I agree with Muller; Gore and Friedman are exaggerators – with reference to their focus on promoting AGW supporting datums and hiding anything under the rug that goes against AGW – that’s not science, it’s marketing. Also its not libel to call them exaggerators when the basis of that statement can be proven, and the argument from authority won’t wash either.
Also I hope all the pro AGW subscribers quit – it will take the pressure off the need to keep bending over to publish pro AGW articles and hopefully bring some much needed balance back.
“Maybe it’s the way the interview is presented, but Muller comes across as either a little unfocused on the questions or naive as to how his answers will be interpreted.”
Muller is apolitical. It’s refreshing, and exactly what you want in a scientist.
Some people have political lenses on so tight that everyone else looks like a political animal too.
I can’t get past the rise of a trace gas to a level still measured in parts per million is somehow responsible for terrible global warming.
As far as China and India go, they are quite pleased at how much the U.S. has given up in terms of manufacturing, technology and tooling, laughing all the way to the Global Market. Truth be told, there isn’t much left for the U.S. to give up aside from its resources.
From the Climate Progress article:
“As Mann writes, …. There is no room for such dishonesty when it comes to discussions of science.”
As clear an example of the pot calling the kettle black as ever seen.
The only difference between Joe Romm and Harold Camping is that the latter [had the seeds/was stupid enough] to pick and name a date of the impending doom…
I gave up on Scientific American years ago after reading an article about doing physics in a group sharing, commune type of environment rather than in the “arrogant” fashion of Richard Feynman whom I admired enormously.
I realized then that a number of earlier articles I had read seemed to be pushing a political and social philosophy rather than just providing interesting science. I haven’t picked up a copy since.
It must have been an accident that some honesty slipped into this article.
Rhoda Ramirez says:
May 23, 2011 at 5:58 pm
Dave Springer, if more scientists accept the idea that the Hockey Stick is bogus, what would that do to all the other papers that were written that assumed the data contained therein were accurate? Just think of the dove cotes that are shaken by THAT idea!
———————————————————–
Rhoda, I can’t even believe there is one person on the planet (including Mann) who doesn’t know that the hockey stick is bogus, as in scientific fraud. I mean, just look at this stupid s***:
http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2009/images/Fig.final_11.jpg
I suppose there are are still tribes out there in the Amazon jungle who don’t have the internet. Good luck with getting them on the jury Mike.
(I admit, I did cherrypick a particularly ludicrous one, but it was from a warmist site).
Is this the beginning of the slippery slope for SciAm? Next thing we know the words ‘intelligent design’ will be appearing in the hallowed journal of naturalism. Oh dear, it will mean the end of science and the end of the world. Again.
Eric says:
May 23, 2011 at 12:32 pm
“I don’t know what parties pay Romm, however after having read his reaction to this piece they definitely don’t pay by the word. I’ve never read such a pseudo aggressive/defensive piece of writing in my life. The guy is certifiable.”
Romm is paid by the “Center for Progress”, run by John Podesta and funded by George Soros.
Romm is sort of a brilliant guy but has lost his scientific soul in promoting the AGW hoax. My favorite symptom of his psychosis is his serious, adamant insistence that Al Gore is indeed a scientist; the evidence being the Nobel Peace Prize.(!)
Uber says:
May 23, 2011 at 7:57 pm
“Is this the beginning of the slippery slope for SciAm?”
That started most spectacularly with the politicized group attack on Bjorn Lomborg’s book The Skeptical Environmentalist.
Any facade of objective science reporting was flushed down the toilet with that mob scene.
So maybe they have now reached some tipping point and will crawl out of that sewer.
If you’re looking for ‘intelligent design,’ try Popular Mechanics. At least they had some interesting ones the last time I looked, long, long ago.
And so, because China and India built a large number of low efficiency coal plants, total global production of CO2 increases as a result of Kyoto.
Australia, by imposing an ETS mechanism, will send its manufacturing to China, which will produce the goods using Australian raw materials such as coal, in power plants that are less efficient than AUstralian plants, and then ship the goods back to Australia.
Wonderful example Australia! Your plan will actually increase global CO2, while making it appear that in Australia at least, CO2 production is down.
However, since Australia is moving its manufacturing to China, paid for by the Australian tax payers, the average Australian will have a lot less money to spend on goods that require CO2 to manufacture. So in the end, maybe Australia will produce less CO2 because they will have less money to spend.
Well, I for one applaud Dr. Muller for his integrity. At the end of his work you will know there are no “hidden declines” or anything of that nature. The man is a realist, as far as I can tell. He believes in Science and where it leads, not in manipulation. That’s my read anyway.
Dr. Muller applauds the efforts of Anthony Watts and Steven McIntyre. To me that shows high integrity. I can’t think of any other reason for mentioning those names so many times, other than the value he believes these two bring to the table, especially with regards to understanding what seems so simple : what IS the earth’s temperature past and present?
I suspect it will take several years after the data is published to validate the conclusions, but in the end it will be open, it will be something that represents an honest evaluation of the data. It won’t be pushed out of ego, but out of real curiosity and scientific rigor. Who else would open the Camino without the assurance of its underlying integrity?
At present I think Muller represents an important scientific asset. I hope he continues to have and stays worthy of the support of Anthony, Steve McIntyre, and all wattsupwiththat folks.
Romm is clearly deluded. he thinks I am a denier
There is fun stuff over at CP. Thinks like:
So, rather than look at the evidence that there is NO money from Big Oil to defend such cases, they build a ‘castles in the sand’ argument for why that is. The really obvious conclusion would be that Big Oil is not funding these people, but that just passes way over their heads (being in the sane).
Big Oil => Big Wind & Big Solar, dummies, and they are funding CAGW for all it’s worth and cleaning up on the tax subsidies!
Oh dear. Australia is now being sold a bill of goods:
http://climatecommission.govspace.gov.au/files/2011/05/4108-CC-Science-Update-PRINT-CHANGES.pdf
and
and
and
and
and
It might also mean that US industry moves to China, India and other countries with less stringent c02 reduction policies. ;O)
For many years, since I read his book ‘Nemesis’, I have had the very highest regard for Richard Muller. His career has been very distinguished, and I’m surprised there’s been virtually no discussion of his career.
He was closely involved with the Alvarez group, which found that the dinosaurs had most likely been destroyed by a massive asteroid or comet strike (the dinosaur on his desk is no coincidence). Alvarez was Muller’s mentor. One thing he learned from Alvarez was that science depended on proof, and that the consensus was no proof at all. Indeed, as they worked on and promoted the asteroid theory, they found themselves having to fight against the massed ranks of the geological consensus. Of course the evidence, such as the iridium layers found all around the globe, finally won the argument. The consensus turned out to be wrong – does this sound familiar?
As Muller involves himself ever deeper in climate change, I hope he remembers the lessons he learned as a young scientist from one of the great scientists of the last century, namely Luis W. Alvarez.
If you can get a copy of ‘Nemesis’, do so – I thoroughly recommend it. It’s the best science book I have read.
Chris
Scientifik Amerikan is on a mission. To hide behind the old venerable name and promote Green propaganda. As early as 1993. http://greenfraud.blogspot.com/2011/03/neither-scientific-nor-american-but-all.html (with a collection of cover pages)
Sold to Holtzbrink in 1986. Their latest accompishment (the 2009 Jacobson & Delucchi fiction) is still in full bloom.
Facts do not come easy,
Facts are now wasted by many,
Facts made U.S. what we are,
Facts will teach U.S. lessons,
Facts care only about themselves,
and
Facts need care.
It’s true that much scientific software requires Windows. But the Mac can run Windows, under its “Bootcamp” app, or under a software system like Parallels.